Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description clearly discloses destructive behavior by stating that reset permanently deletes a custom page and that no version history exists. It also notes validation behavior (invalid Twig syntax rejected), consistent with the destructiveHint annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first and then adding necessary warnings and usage guidance in four sentences. Every sentence contributes operational or safety-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the destructive action and lack of an output schema, the description provides the essential context: intended use, required read-before-write flow, reset consequences, syntax validation, and absence of version history. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides full coverage of all parameters with detailed descriptions, including action enum semantics, data as full replacement source, template_name requirements, and is_active behavior. The description text itself does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond that schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates or resets workspace Twig templates used by client pages and emails, making its purpose and resource type explicit. It also distinguishes itself from template-read and other write tools by naming update and reset actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit instructions to read template-read first before updating to preserve intended content, and explains when to use update versus reset. It also warns that resetting a custom page permanently deletes it and that invalid Twig syntax is rejected.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.